AND RUSSIA SHOULD TAKE A MORE ACTIVE AND ACTIVE PART IN IT

The countries of the Asia-Pacific region (APR), however, as well as for the entire civilized world, are characterized by the development of integration processes and the expansion of economic cooperation. However, such cooperation in this region has a number of specific features, of which the main one is a clear preference for bilateral relations, their priority over multilateral cooperation, especially if the latter entails taking on significant obligations in the relevant areas of domestic and foreign policy, as is usually practiced in Europe. However, the countries of the Asia-Pacific region cannot ignore the processes of globalization taking place in the world, primarily in the economic sphere, and therefore regional economic integration is also gaining momentum here. However, in everything that concerns military - political cooperation and views on the formation of collective security systems, it seems that the APR countries do not yet intend to follow Western European examples and practices in this area.

This approach is based on a number of factors. First of all, we should not forget that the vast majority of the current states in this region were very long in colonial or semi-colonial dependence on Europeans and gained sovereignty on average 50 years ago. The struggle between their former mother countries, which accompanied the entire period of colonization, contributed to the division of the peoples of this region, the echoes of which are still manifested in mutual territorial claims, periodic exacerbation of ethnic and religious discord. Therefore, any adherence to external guidelines, even developed by a group of countries in their own region, not to mention the participation of Western states in this matter, is perceived by them with caution, probably because it reminds them of the past.

SUCCESSES AND FAILURES OF US POLICY

The most vivid illustration of this is the failure of the United States and its allies to form multilateral military-political alliances involving the countries of the Asia-Pacific region and its neighboring states - Australia and New Zealand. Thus, the SENTO and ANZCJ blocks created in the 1950s and 1960s collapsed after the Vietnam War, and military activity in SEATO was stopped. Nor did AZPAK, which remained mostly an economic and to a lesser extent a political association, become a military bloc. The ANZUS Triple Security Pact (Australia, New Zealand, and the United States) has been experiencing a long-term crisis. Only the defense union of the British Commonwealth countries (England, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and Singapore), which has been functioning since the early 1970s, shows some activity.

Currently, only bilateral military-political alliances between the United States and Japan and between the United States and the Republic of Korea, which had a fairly obvious orientation against the USSR, remain the closest in the Asia-Pacific region/Russia, China and North Korea. But here, too, the US attempts to unite them into a common military alliance started in the first half of the 80s, as well as the project to expand the ANZUS bloc by joining Japan and Canada, for which a new abbreviation JAKANJUS was even coined, with the subsequent intention of involving South Korea in ^it1 .

Having failed to achieve results in the legal formalization of new military bloc formations even during the Cold War, in the new conditions, the United States launched activities to prepare for the creation of a Pacific theater missile defense system together with Japan and the Republic of Korea (and possibly Taiwan). Moreover, it is expected that individual elements of this system will be located in space. It is possible that by involving these countries in the joint implementation of such large-scale work, the United States is also pursuing the goal of raising to a higher level the interaction of the armed forces of the project's participating states and in other areas of their activities, which should lead to closer military integration. These areas include intelligence, planning and conducting joint operations.

Nevertheless, it seems that in creating a security system in the Asia-Pacific region, the states of the region want to go their own way, not wanting to follow the recipes proposed by the West and seeing in them attempts to impose certain solutions on them. At the same time, it seems that such sentiments here have strengthened after the recent events in Yugoslavia and Iraq, the reaction to which in the countries of the region, with a few exceptions, fluctuated between cautious neutrality and restrained condemnation. It is also important that many South-East Asian countries in such cases are also guided by the position taken on these issues by the leadership of one of the most authoritative states in the region. -

page 43

The Government of the People's Republic of China is a consistent opponent of the establishment of broad multilateral security institutions in Asia.

Under these circumstances, the United States is making serious efforts to maintain bilateral allied relations with a number of countries in the Asia-Pacific region. These include, in addition to Japan and the Republic of Korea, Thailand and the Philippines.

It is known that in the practice of international relations in recent decades, the so-called "soft international treaties"have become increasingly popular. Signing such documents, usually in the form of declarations and memoranda, or joining them does not entail specific legal obligations of the State, but only reflects its consent to cooperate and adhere to the general and clearly formulated basic rules of conduct of countries in their joint activities in certain areas of international relations. As an example, the overwhelming majority of the world's countries agree with the principle of State responsibility for environmental damage in areas beyond its national jurisdiction. This principle was established in the Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment of 1972 and in the Declaration on the Environment and Its Conservation adopted in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.

In the Asia-Pacific region, the desire to regulate relations between states using such a model can be seen in the development of similar documents on the sphere of marine use, in which, due to the geographical location of the countries of the region and the significant dependence of their economies on maritime activities, as well as the presence of historically determined contradictions, there are many controversial problems. Moreover, such disputes often became the causes of local armed conflicts that took place even in recent years.

THE AUTHORITY OF THE ARF IS GROWING

At the same time, it should be noted that such an interstate institution as the Asean Regional Forum (ARF) is gaining more and more authority and political influence in the Asia-Pacific region, where problems of relations between the ASEAN countries are discussed at a high state level and measures are developed to solve them. The Asia-Pacific Security Cooperation Council (APCSC)was established to develop conceptual provisions aimed at maintaining a stable environment in the region* Featuring 18 countries: Australia, China, North Korea, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mongolia, New Zealand, Philippines, Russia, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam, as well as Canada, the United States, and the European Union. India is an associate member of this council.

Within the framework of this council, there are several working groups, including the Working Group on Regional Maritime Cooperation, formed in 1995. Its task is to develop recommendations designed to achieve a common interpretation of the law of the sea by the States of the region and to bring closer their approaches to solving disputed maritime problems, as well as to promote confidence-building and cooperation in this area.

The working group's study of problematic issues culminates in the preparation of draft documents that are submitted to the APSSB Steering Committee for consideration. Comments received from members of the council are discussed at the next meeting of the working group and, if necessary, clarifications are made in the wording of recommendations. After the final documents are approved by the APSSB members, they are issued in the form of memoranda. A total of 11 meetings of the working group were held and 6 memoranda were issued. In particular, the APSSB Memorandum No. 4 " Recommendations for Regional Maritime Cooperation "was issued in 1999, No. 5" Cooperation for Law and Order at Sea "- in ^{2000, and No. 6" Application of the Law of the Sea in the Asia-Pacific region " - in 2002.2}

Memorandum No. 4 states that the proposed recommendations were developed on the basis of proposals that were put forward in several regional forums in order to reach a general agreement on the prevention of incidents at sea. However, in the course of their work, they conceptually transformed from the idea of preparing a document designed to help stabilize the situation at sea, to the idea of developing broader recommendations covering various areas of regional maritime cooperation, which was approved by all APSSB members.

According to the authors of the proposed recommendations, they contain a comprehensive approach to regional security issues. Therefore, if adopted by the Asia-Pacific states, they will make a significant contribution to the stabilization of the situation in the region, as they cover confidence-building measures and preventive diplomacy measures formulated by the Asean Regional Forum. At the same time, their development took into account the practice of the countries of the region regarding compliance with international law in the seas and oceans, which is supplemented by the obligations of States in the field of maritime cooperation, as defined in the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Speaking about the significance of these recommendations, the authors of the memorandum note that they are due to the very nature and complexity of the geography of the region, the importance of maritime problems in the life of its countries, as well as the propensity of a considerable number of them to disputes and illegal actions at sea. Therefore, it is maritime cooperation, in their opinion, that should make the main contribution to regional stability, easing tensions and reducing the risk of conflicts.

Memorandum No. 5 contains an analysis of the most effective examples of actions of the APR states in the interests of maintaining the rule of law at sea, as well as appropriate areas of cooperation for this purpose. It provides a list of measures that would contribute to the maintenance of law and order at sea and reduce maritime crime, as well as discusses the possibilities of enforcement of State laws at sea and areas of cooperation to enforce, in certain cases, the provisions of international law permitted by such laws outside their national jurisdiction.

In international documents, as well as reference books, its other abbreviation is found-SSBA - Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia-Pacific Region.

page 44

The importance of this area of activity is due to the fact that respect for the rule of law and order at sea contributes to strengthening freedom of maritime trade and guarantees that countries respect their interests by peaceful means when developing their biological and mineral marine resources in accordance with international law. It minimizes the damage to national economies caused by criminal networks, and ensures the conservation and protection of the marine environment, including the preservation of its diversity, and ensures that all countries and peoples, including their future generations, benefit equally from it.

Memorandum No. 6 addresses issues where the national policies of the Asia-Pacific countries in relation to certain aspects of the law of the sea differ. Of course, understanding each other's positions makes it possible to solve real problems more successfully, even in the face of existing disagreements. However, only mutual understanding based on a uniform interpretation of the rules of the law of the sea, especially concerning navigation regimes and the obligations of coastal States in various maritime zones, will contribute to the development of effective confidence-building measures and ensure genuine maritime security.

"CODE OF CONDUCT" FOR THE STATES OF THE REGION

Another example of a very sensible approach to dispute resolution is the drafting and signing of the agreement in Phnom Penh in November 2002. Declaration of Principles on Activities in the South China Sea. It should be noted that the idea of developing a code of conduct in this area, where several countries claim a number of islands at once, and there have already been cases of the use of weapons, appeared in ASEAN in the late 90s. Work on this document began when the ASEAN-China negotiations in April 1999. Beijing has agreed to prepare it.

In August of the same year, the Philippines submitted a draft of such a code on behalf of ASEAN, and two months later China came out with its own version. They wanted to discuss both projects at the ASEAN-China meeting in November 1999, but the Chinese representatives refused to consider the Philippine version, although they agreed to continue working on the document. The disagreements related to the construction of structures on uninhabited islands, atolls and reefs in disputed areas and the procedure for the operation of armed forces in them, as well as the possibility of filing claims for illegal actions in this zone with the International Court of Justice or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, and some other issues. As a result, China and Malaysia, which supported it, said that the document requires more thorough study.

During the subsequent three-year negotiations, ASEAN made significant concessions to China, and as a result, the 2002 Phnom Penh Declaration largely prevails over the Chinese position. The document confirms the freedom of navigation and flight in the South China Sea in accordance with the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the commitment to peaceful settlement of disputes based on mutual consultations, the commitment to refrain from actions that may lead to an aggravation of the situation in this area, the intention to develop cooperation in the interests of protecting the marine environment, conducting scientific research to ensure the safety of navigation and rescue of people, as well as to fight crime. At the same time, such interaction will be built "on the basis of a friendly exchange of views, constructive dialogue and justice." It is recognized that it is necessary to provide early notification of the conduct of certain activities by the armed forces in this zone, as well as the exchange of relevant military information.

However, while assessing the significance of signing this document for strengthening peace and stability in Southeast Asia, a number of analysts are skeptical, primarily regarding the possible further actions of the PRC. After all, relatively recently - in August and November 1995-China already signed bilateral codes of conduct in this zone with the Philippines and Vietnam, but this did not stop then the continuation of Chinese expansion in the zones of disputed islands. Therefore, in matters related to territorial problems, in their opinion, more clearly defined obligations are needed, which also have executive force and a mechanism for responsibility for their violations.

Nevertheless, this Declaration has a positive significance as another step aimed at eliminating contradictions between the countries of the region and creating an environment of stability and peace in it. Moreover, according to the form of its signing, China is one party, and the ASEAN countries are the other. Therefore, if the Chinese deviate from the provisions declared in the document, they may meet with consolidated opposition from the entire ASEAN, as was already the case in 1995 and 1997.

THE MAIN PROBLEMS ARE MARITIME ONES

Currently, the APSSB is working on developing a common concept for regional maritime security. It is expected that this will be a policy-oriented document containing the concept of the nature of maritime crime, as well as the causes of other maritime offenses, and establishing general principles of jurisdiction in ensuring law and order at sea. In addition, it is expected that it will also use best practices related to joint activities of the States of the region to prevent and reduce the consequences of marine natural disasters and mutual assistance in the elimination of their consequences, as well as with the organization of other rescue operations at sea.

Undoubtedly, such work should be based on a common understanding of the principles underlying this concept, as well as involve all countries in the region in cooperation and coordination of actions in this area. Only in this case can we ensure effective control and real management of the situation while ensuring law and order in the waters of the Asia-Pacific region.

Moreover, a document of this level should:

* first, to become an important stage in the development of regional confidence-building measures, establishing common principles for maritime cooperation among the States of the region;

* Second, it marks a significant new step in the process of establishing a Convention-based maritime management regime in the Asia-Pacific region

page 45

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and other international agreements in this field;

* third, serve to establish a stable maritime regime in the region with a free flow of maritime trade that takes into account the interests of all countries and guarantees them the opportunity to defend these interests, manage their marine resources, and protect them in the interests of preserving the marine environment on the basis of generally accepted norms and principles of international law;

* fourth, provide for confidence-building measures in the field of naval activities, including coordination of measures to prevent incidents involving ships at sea and aircraft above it, expanding contacts between senior management and personnel of relevant departments and military units of different countries, the possibility of involving fleet forces in joint humanitarian and law enforcement operations, etc.

Finally, the conceptual provisions of this document should be organically combined with security concepts in other areas of activity, thereby contributing to the formation of principles of comprehensive security in the region.

All of the above shows that the APR states pay considerable attention to the problem of creating conditions for overcoming existing differences between them, including the sphere of maritime use, and, despite significant differences in the level of economic development, the nature of the political structure and the availability of military potential, they take quite similar positions on them. Assessing the growing interconnectedness and interdependence of states ' vital activities in modern conditions as an objective process, most of them seek to build their relations on the basis of consensus and resist attempts to dominate regional powers, primarily the United States. This approach to the development of interstate relations seems to be most consistent with the principle of building a multipolar world, taking into account its diversity and the diversity of peoples ' vital interests, as well as their right to preserve their identity and choose their own path of development.

RUSSIA'S POLICY SHOULD BECOME MORE ACTIVE

It is quite obvious that Russia, as one of the largest Pacific countries, is simply obliged to actively participate in all areas of international activity in the Asia-Pacific region and, above all, in building a security system in the region, especially since it is a member of the APSSB and has also declared its commitment to the principle of multipolarity in the Concept of its foreign Policy. However, despite the fact that at all levels of the Russian government there is a lot of talk about the importance of the eastern direction for us, in reality it is not given enough attention. This is evidenced, in particular, by the fact that during the preparation of this article, the author was not able to find responsible employees in any department who participate more or less on a permanent basis in the activities of the APSSB working groups.

At the same time, the United States is increasingly imposing its leadership on the Asia-Pacific region, thereby seeking to secure its own national interests here. To do this, they are trying to convince both their partners and potential rivals in the Asia-Pacific region that it is futile to try to ignore the position of the United States on certain issues, because, firstly, this will be beyond their power, and, secondly, they will not be able to do it. - it will harm the national interests and security of the countries that decide to take this path.

At the same time, the content of the current US policy both in the Asia-Pacific region and globally, despite all Washington's statements about the good dynamics of partnership relations with Russia, clearly shows steps aimed at further weakening its positions. While deterring China, the United States is simultaneously taking various measures aimed at hindering the rapprochement of the PRC and the Russian Federation as states with potential that in the future may allow them to jointly challenge American hegemony.

All this is understood by the leading political figures of the East Asian states. However, most of them prefer not to conflict with the United States, even if they do not share their positions on most issues of world politics. While remaining pragmatic, they prefer to get loans and technology from the West and from the United States ' close ally, Japan, while keeping a wary eye on the rapidly growing power of China.

In such circumstances, Russia needs support from a variety of different sides, among which there can be no less important ones. To do this, we must actively integrate into various regional processes and not only participate in regular conferences, meetings and meetings, but also work on a daily basis with interest and constructively in various working groups and committees of international organizations in the region, even on issues that are not very relevant for our state today. This fully applies, and perhaps primarily, to our activities in the APSSB.

After all, the Asia-Pacific region is a region where, under certain conditions, we are more likely to receive one or another political and economic support than in other regions of the world. In addition, with rare exceptions, everything that concerns Asian states today has analogues in the complex of our own problems in the east of our country. In the context of what was mentioned above, these are issues of demarcation, problems of maritime use, the need to combat crimes at sea, and more generally, the development and implementation of confidence - building measures for building a security system in the region.

Only on this path can we achieve a better understanding of our positions on various issues by the countries of East Asia, as well as overcome the unfortunately prevailing view of our state as a country where they do not understand enough about the specific problems of the East. Only by changing the image of our country that has unfortunately developed in a significant part of our planet in recent years will we be able to count on Russia's support in various situations when circumstances require it.

-----

¹ "Mainiti Shimbun". 29.03.1984.

² For the text of these memoranda, see: Legal aspects of the problems of marine use in the Asia-Pacific Region and their impact on the marine activity of Russia, Moscow: IDV RAS, 2003.

Permanent link to this publication: